Tyrrell_McAllister comments on To signal effectively, use a non-human, non-stoppable enforcer

Tyrrell_McAllister 24 May 2010 0:32 UTC
0 points

Meaning my reasoning skills would be advanced by reading something? So I made an error? Yes, I did. That’s the point.

FWIW, I understood that you were presenting an argument to criticize its conclusion. I still think that you haven’t read Pearl (at least not carefully) because, among other things, your putative causal diagram has arrows pointing to exogenous variables.
- Clippy 24 May 2010 0:43 UTC
  1 point
  Parent
  
  I still think that you haven’t read Pearl (at least not carefully) because, among other things, your putative causal diagram has arrows pointing to exogenous variables.
  
  I puted no such diagram; rather, you puted a logical statement that you claimed represented the decision theory I was referring to. See also my reply here.
  - Tyrrell_McAllister 24 May 2010 0:51 UTC
    0 points
    Parent
    
    I puted no such diagram
    
    I thought you had because you said
    
    If you treat P ⇔ (Q ⇔ P) as an acausal statement, you can show its equivalence to Q, but it is not the same causal network.
    
    I took this to mean that you were treating P ⇔ (Q ⇔ P) and Q as causal networks, but distinct ones.
    
    You also said
    
    I can set P.
    
    I took this to mean that P was an exogenous variable in a causal network.
    
    I apologize for the misinterpretation.